mtndiver

Suggest this report from Reuters (partial copy- below). AGW/ climate change issues / conclusions are troubling, especially since we own property on the east coast of USA. Once seperate, technical groups study these Greenland melting issues and concur with these general conclusions, then prevention and couter-measures should start soon!

{_______} copied info:

{ Greenland ice could fuel severe U.S. sea level rise

Wed May 27, 2009 5:36pm EDT

by Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - New York, Boston and other cities on North America's northeast coast could face a rise in sea level this century that would exceed forecasts for the rest of the planet if Greenland's ice sheet keeps melting as fast as it is now, researchers said on Wednesday.

Sea levels off the northeast coast of North America could rise by 12 to 20 inches more than other coastal areas if the Greenland glacier-melt continues to accelerate at its present pace, the researchers reported.

This is because the current rate of ice-melting in Greenland could send so much fresh water into the salty north Atlantic Ocean that it could change the vast ocean circulation pattern sometimes called the conveyor belt. Scientists call this pattern the meridional overturning circulation.

"If the Greenland melt continues to accelerate, we could see significant impacts this century on the northeast U.S. coast from the resulting sea level rise," said Aixie Hu, lead author of an article on the subject in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

"Major northeastern cities are directly in the path of the greatest rise," said Hu, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado.}

Today's news (also covered by Yahoo) has another warning about problems expected from Global Warming, after 4 to 7 decades (~debate still on how many decades). Many potential refugees (up to 150 million by ~2050, or abouts) would be from poor or low-lying nations with few options. Should the "richer", most polluting nations now prepare well for these sea rise scenarios (23" by ~ 2050)?

{ reported May 12, 2009 }

MANADO, Indonesia (AFP) - Rising sea levels that could wipe whole nations off the map and displace scores of millions of people are being overlooked in global climate change talks, island countries said Tuesday. Major emitters are pushing for greenhouse gas emissions cuts that are too low to prevent devastating sea rises, representatives said at the World Ocean Conference in Indonesia's Manado city.

"Dealing with environmental refugees will have a much more serious impact on the global economy and global security in fact than what wars have ever done to this planet," said Rolph Payet, a presidential adviser from the African island nation of the Seychelles.

Today's news has another warning about problems expected from AGW, after 4 to 6 decades (~ debate still on how many decades). Many potential refugees (up to 150 million by ~2050, or abouts) would be from poor or low-lying nations with few options. Should the "richer" nations now prepare well for these sea rise scenarios (23" by ~ 2050)?

{ reported May 12, 2009 }

MANADO, Indonesia (AFP) - Rising sea levels that could wipe whole nations off the map and displace scores of millions of people are being overlooked in global climate change talks, island countries said Tuesday. Major emitters are pushing for greenhouse gas emissions cuts that are too low to prevent devastating sea rises, representatives said at the World Ocean Conference in Indonesia's Manado city.

"Dealing with environmental refugees will have a much more serious impact on the global economy and global security in fact than what wars have ever done to this planet," said Rolph Payet, a presidential adviser from the African island nation of the Seychelles.

http://www.scuderiengine.com/first-scuderi-engine-...

The Scuderi Group unveiled today model of 1st prototype; their split-cycle internal combustion engine has much promise toward 20+% increases in efficiency and much less air pollution.

In 1988, James Hansen and team at NASA made projections regarding how much the 5-year running mean "global surface air temperature" would increase in the future under certain CO2 emissions scenarios. Their Scenario B seems close, considering the many variables and unpredictables (like volcanoes) over 20+ years. These projections clearly aren't exact; but, does anyone have clear documentation of any *better projections made at that time?

www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen88_forc.jpg

Are proponents of AGW / Climate Change inside the USA losing the credibility and importance war to the on-slaught of the "denial machinery" and special interests who use all the media tricks?

Article from: The Australian Print March 14, 2009

WASHINGTON: More Americans than at any time in the past decade believe that the seriousness of global warming is being exaggerated, a new Gallup poll shows.

Forty-one per cent of Americans told Gallup pollsters they were doubtful global warming was as serious as the mainstream media were reporting -- the highest result in more than a decade.

In 2004, 38 per cent of Americans thought news reports exaggerated the seriousness of global warming.

Gallup's 2009 environment poll, which surveyed 1012 adults by fixed and mobile phone, also showed that Americans ranked global warming last out of eight environmental issues they might be concerned about.

The pollution of drinking water was deemed the greatest source of concern, with 84 per cent of respondents saying it worried them.

Other issues that were ranked -- and beat global warming by at least five percentage points -- were water pollution in general, toxic contamination of soil and water, fresh water supply, air pollution, loss of rainforests, and the extinction of plants and animals.

The number of Americans who thought global warming was already affecting the planet fell from 61 per cent in March last year to 53 per cent this year.

A record high 16 per cent of Americans told Gallup pollsters that they believed the effects of global warming "will never occur".

"Americans *generally believe global warming is real (but) most Americans do not view the issue in the same dire terms as the many prominent leaders advancing global warming as an issue."

At his summit yesterday with cross-section of USA CEOs:

"The science is overwhelming. This is a real problem. It will have severe economic consequences, as well as political and national security and environmental consequences. I understand that this will be a difficult transition for many businesses to make, and that’s why this budget does not account for such a cap until 2012 — a time when this economy should be on the road to recovery.

Under the cap proposal that we have, it wouldn’t even start until 2012, where we’re going to be out of this recession — or you’ll have somebody else speaking to you in 2013. But if we don’t start now, if we wait until — to have the debate in 2012, and then suddenly it turns out that oil is at $150 a barrel again, and we say, oh, why is it that we didn’t start thinking about this and making some steps now to figure this out. Well, that’s what Washington does. You guys could not run your business that way. And so the notion that we are doing some long-term planning now and trying to get this town to think long term, that somehow that’s a distraction just defies every sound management practice that I’ve ever heard of".

Per this quote from Feb. 5, 2007 article by CNN.Money:

"This has become a strategy of Exxon's over the years," said Hoover. "The number one way to fight Kyoto was to insert doubt into people's mind." A recent report from the Union of Concerned Scientists said Exxon spent $16 million between 1998 and 2005 funding 43 "organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science." According to Exxon's Web site, the company contributed $240,000 to AEI {American Enterprise Institute- a center for denial machinery} in 2005 and a similar amount in 2004.

An Exxon (Charts) spokesman said the company continues to donate to AEI, but said it does not control what the group does.

But Exxon has recently acknowledged that global warming *is happening. The oil giant conceded that humans are partly to blame for the phenomenon, and pledged to stop funding what many consider to be fringe groups that downplay human's role in global warming.

"There is increasing evidence that the earth's climate has warmed," reads Exxon's latest statement on global warming, issued Friday { Feb., 2007} in response to the UN IPCC study. "CO2 emissions have increased...and emissions from fossil fuels and land use changes are one source of these emissions. "Because the risks to society and ecosystems [posed by global warming] could prove to be significant, it is prudent now to develop and implement strategies that address the risks, keeping in mind the central importance of energy to the economies of the world. This includes putting policies in place that start us on a path to reduce emissions, while understanding the context of managing carbon emissions among other important world priorities, such as economic development, poverty eradication and public health."